London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi paul I expect that the legal expenses cover , would be in the event that the claimants lost, yet still had to pay not only their own legal costs but potentially that of RBS. I find the 40% - 45% figure concerning and have not had sight of any contract that exists between the RBoS AG and claimants. Obviously, legal costs will have to be paid but given that the claim has now been settled, the costs would only be to date and not have to include the cost of proceeding with the claim. Therefore they will be much reduced. It seems a bit late in the day to advise claimants that they will be losing such a large percentage of the settlement figure by way of RBoS AG Limited deductions . Seems odd to me , to advise claimants after agreeing a settlement how much it is going to cost them, normally this is agreed before proceeding with a claim ? Lastly , I am surprised that RBS were not asked to cover claimant costs in the settlement agreement ? Who exactly is the 40% - 45% going to ?
I'm slightly confused. If this last group (of which I am a member) gets twice the settlement figure of the other groups but still only receives just over 50% of the settlement, that implies that the other groups either had far, far cheaper costs, or ended up with nothing? I thought that we had legal expenses cover, but presumably from my reading of the email from the group the settlement of those is not on top of the settlement sum, they are included within the settlement. For my part I paid the first, and I think second, request for funds, but I stopped after that as I felt that the communication and set up of the group was becoming more and more mickey mouse and like others on here was conscious of throwing away more money.
I think you could bank on thousands per individual if you were thinking of trying to progress another class action claim. This claim has run into millions in costs and given that the group are now suggesting taking 40% - 45% of the settlement figure , it would seem that costs are in the tens of millions , which seems excessive I have to say. As with all of these situations, cost depends on how many people are involved, what the chances of success are and which lawyers you use .
M1k3y , answer the below question by my email if you prefer .
Hi M1k3y , sorry , i meant how much have you paid in fees so far to the RBOS group personally ? I only ask as should there be some alternative route , alternative group , for the latecomers to join & get some compensation i want to know how much approximately i am letting myself in for . As a latecomer all i have paid into the RBOS account is £500 ..... Cheers
Bubbles I have no idea how much has been paid in fees to the group to date. These are the latest accounts which I can find . https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06853408/filing-history Certainly the fees paid by individuals to the Group would be in the thousands and possibly by larger shareholders, tens of thousands.
M1k3y , i did get the email that you sent me this morning from RBOS as well . Out of interest how much fees have you paid to date to the RBOS fund for legal fees ? Cheers
Sorry to hear that Bubbles. I am surprised that the settlement did not include RBS paying the fees of the groups Solicitors etc. 40%-45% Is a substantial chunk to lose , on top of the fees that claimants had already paid to the group. Will be interesting to see what exactly the final percentage payout figure to claimants is and who exactly is going to be paid what in the way of fees .
Thanks for your email Milky . As expected not a single word in it about the late claimants ......Luckily got through on the RBOS line and was told that the offer does not include the latecomers ....so that news has just put me out of misery over the whole of this bl888dy affair . Cheers
Looks like they are going to settle but there may be some unhappy members of the group as they are saying they will be taking 40 % - 45% of the settlement figure to pay fees etc ?
What the UK, and other countries, have received is a great deal of money. Last year, the Bank of England estimated that global banks had paid $150bn in fines over the prior five years, in connection with not just the financial crisis but also mis-selling and price-fixing scandals. This is enough to hurt, and likely to change, future behaviour. The BoE also points out, however, that the fines are roughly equivalent to the amount of cash the banks have had to raise to meet higher post-crisis capital requirements. Taking funds out of banks with fines while simultaneously insisting that they are underfunded threatens to become a pointless circular exercise. Furthermore, the dependence on fines rather than prosecutions or civil suits leaves the question of personal responsibility painfully unresolved. There is always the risk that shareholder lawsuits will create moral hazard. The stock market is a irreducibly risky place. The idea that when a business falls apart its owners can seek compensation in the courts could make shareholders less cautious — and lack of caution is precisely what financial crises are made of. If the cases do go to trial, though, there is at least the compensation that arguments will be heard and a judgment reached. The RBS shareholders may settle before Mr Goodwin enters the court. This might be in both sides’ best interest. But it will not bring any sense of resolution to a country that is still living in the shadow of the financial crisis.
The financial crisis lives on in UK courtrooms The civil suit against RBS is about accountability as well as money RBS investors hold out for Goodwin’s day in court The law tries cases and metes out punishment for a number of different reasons. Securing restitution for damage done and deterring future misdeeds are the most respectable and most often cited. There is a subtler reason, though, one that is easily forgotten. Justice often consists in simply setting the record straight, in saying what happened in a clear, public and final way. If this last element is neglected, old wounds can remain open. The financial crisis, and in particular the shareholder suit against the Royal Bank of Scotland, are an excellent example. Certainly, the RBS shareholders are after money. The holdouts who have refused offers of a settlement from the bank are seeking £700m, claiming that they were misled by the bank ahead of its £12bn rights issue in 2008, which was quickly followed by a state bailout and the further collapse of the shares. Several of them, however, say that they also want fundamental questions answered publicly. “It’s about seeing the ex-directors in court and . . . learning once and for all what happened,” one said. The shareholders would, more specifically, want to see former RBS chief executive Fred Goodwin in the dock. Mr Goodwin has, to a degree, been punished already. He lost his job, of course, and his knighthood was stripped away five years ago. After a fight, he was forced to accept a reduction in his pension. But, aside from an appearance in front of a Commons inquiry, he has not had to answer publicly for what happened at RBS or his role in it. There is an important sense that the RBS case is not about one man or one bank, but the country as a whole. The taxpayer is still directly involved. RBS is almost three-quarters owned by the state, which has a cost basis in its shares of 502p. The shares are currently at 260p. The government has recently acknowledged that it may never be made whole. And nearly a decade after the crisis, no senior UK bank executive has yet been a defendant in a civil or criminal trial as a result of the sectors’ decimation by bad loans, risky funding and ill-structured products. The country has some of the same hunger for justice as the RBS holdouts.
I have no more information than anyone else but i cant belief RBS defence can be that robust They should have all paperwork records etc to the issue and should be in position to simply say we can prove our case lets go to court - end of Either they have no faith in the British judicial system or not lot confidence they are rich -just my opinion
Mr Bubbles Where did you hear this information please ? I am not getting and replies to my e-mails or telephone calls to the Group ? If you have any further news, would be grateful. Don't give up yet on the late claimants........I guess the court will determine whether they can be admitted or not.
Terrible news for the late claimants part of the RBOS group . RBS have refused to make any offer to them & will not because they are outside the 6yr limitation period . The late claimants such as myself have still to be admitted to the court register and that is still being discussed . Looks like i wont get a penny . Cheers
Well for me , I don;t have the financial resources MR Mitchell appears to have. I joined the group in the hope that I might recover some of the losses I have suffered. Hard earned money, I can Ill afford to lose. I certainly can't afford to lose any more, should the claim prove unsuccessful. Mr Mitchell would appear to want to continue the claim regardless . If he does and he wins I wish him well but not by potentially placing my finances at greater risk. After all, non of us (lower level) claimants have seen any of the evidence, or been privy to the legal advice received by the Action Group. For me a settlement would be prudent.
Well, you have to admire his conviction.
The Independent Neil Mitchell launches business action group against RBS http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/neil-mitchell-launches-business-action-group-against-rbs-9232321.html
The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/25/rbs-royal-bank-scotland-shareholders-fred-goodwin-court-case-settlement I find the following statement in this article very concerning; "Shareholder Neil Mitchell, who has previously sued RBS in a separate claim, said there was a hardcore group that would not settle under any circumstances. “For many people, it’s never been about money, it’s been about principle and justice, and about seeing senior board members of the bank brought to trial,” So , regardless of the cost, Mr Mitchell wants his day in court. It seems he also has another related agenda. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-4262220/Whistleblower-s-RBS-128m-court-battle.html As I have said earlier, different claimants will have different views regarding settling or continuing.
Thanks Mr Bubbles I notice this quote "The High Court has been told a number of claimants have not been able to be contacted about the latest offer because of old addresses." If this is true, I am afraid it is incorrect, as I , and it appears others here, have not been contacted by anyone. I have not had any replies to my e-mails and may have to resort to contacting the solicitors directly, if I don't receive a response. If there are claimants who wish to continue, while others choose to accept a settlement, that is their option of course. Whether the existing Solicitors would wish to continue if a large percentage of the existing claimants settled, may be questionable. I have seen this before .......people can lose sight of the fact, they may not win and would be liable not only for the monies they have lost to date but also for costs etc There is no certainty in a court of law . Of course IF money is of no consequence then good luck but for my part a prudent settlement seems a sensible (if not principled) outcome.
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/879023c2-4146-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58 “It’s never been about the money for a large number of what I call diehard shareholders,” said Neil Mitchell, a businessman and shareholder. “It’s about seeing the ex-directors in court and . . . learning once and for all what happened in relation to the bailout by the government at the time.” John Greenwood, an individual investor from Huddersfield, who claims to have lost about £45,000, said: “I joined the rights issue group on the understanding that the full facts behind the rights offer and what was going on at the time would all come out. I wouldn’t have joined if we’d settled without the information coming out . . . I’d like to go to court.” Rob MacGregor, a national officer for Unite, the union, said there was a small group of investors who “want to have their day in court”, given they “haven’t heard from Goodwin”. Mr Goodwin, who was stripped of his knighthood in 2012, has rarely been seen in public since RBS’s near collapse and only agreed to reduce a £700,000 annual pension following a very public battle. He still lives in Edinburgh and was recently involved in a battle with his neighbours who wanted him to chop down a giant leylandii hedge in his garden. The RBS shareholder action group consists of 8,625 retail shareholders and around 20 institutions who are all represented by law firm Signature Litigation. One person close to the group said investors would be “hard-pressed” to refuse an offer if it amounted to £1 a share. RBS’s current chief executive, Ross McEwan, this year criticised staff and former colleagues for seeking to bring a case against the bank having served there. The case is being financed by two funders, including London & Northern Capital Partners (LNCP), which is associated with the family interests of multi-millionaire entrepreneur Trevor Hemmings. Mr Hemmings is also a claimant but is said to be considering the latest offer. If he and the majority of investors decide to settle, any remaining claimants who wish to fight on will have to find alternative funding to cover their legal costs. The High Court has been told a number of claimants have not been able to be contacted about the latest offer because of old addresses. Court documents show that 35 per cent of the retail shareholders who signed up to the lawsuit are pensioners, 15 per cent have since died, 20 per cent live overseas a
Resolute RBS investors hold out for Fred Goodwin’s day in court State-backed bank trying to settle shareholder lawsuit over 2008 rights issue by: Emma Dunkley and Jane Croft A group of “diehard” Royal Bank of Scotland shareholders intent on seeing the bank’s disgraced former chief executive Fred Goodwin in court are leading resistance to a settlement with the state-backed lender in a £700m lawsuit. A faction of investors within the 9,000-strong shareholder action group insist they would rather see Mr Goodwin held to account than accept the current offer of 82p per share from RBS to settle the High Court case. The resistance group includes about 4,500 current and former employees who are holding out for a higher price, according to one person briefed on their plans. The high-profile civil trial, which has been adjourned until June, is set to expose the actions of RBS’s former directors about events leading up to its disastrous investor fundraising in 2008 — only months before its £45.5bn bailout, the largest bank rescue in British history. The investors claim that a £12bn 2008 rights issue prospectus contained misleading information about RBS’s financial position under Mr Goodwin’s leadership and want compensation. RBS and the directors deny wrongdoing. RBS, which declined to comment, is trying to stave off the trial and has almost doubled its settlement offer to investors from 43p to 82p in the past week. Most investors paid 200p per share in the rights issue. The shareholder group has told the High Court that this week’s delays were due to “the logistical problem” of contacting some of the thousands of retail investors to allow them time to consider the offer “rather than anything more fundamental”. It’s never been about the money for a large number of what I call diehard shareholders. It’s about seeing the ex-directors in court and . . . learning once and for all what happened in relation to the bail out by the government at the time. Neil Mitchell, businessman and RBS shareholder The group has said the majority of investors have indicated they would like to settle. However some retail investors say they want the trial to go ahead. “It’s never been about the money for a large number of what I call diehard shareholders,” said Neil Mitchell, a businessman and share